This is not a scandal - it merely shows us the difference between policy and advice

It is reported that 'minsters pressured' the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE as it's illiterately known) on the matter of minimum pricing for booze:

MINISTERS are accused of pressuring an independent health watchdog into dropping support for minimum booze pricing.

The National Institute for Health and Care Excellence removed backing for the scheme from recent NHS guidelines. It had previously supported it in advice which said slashing OAPs’ drinking could cut dementia.

But a British Medical Journal probe claims the watchdog only made the change after health ministers intervened.

Well actually this allegation - unsurprisingly from the British Medical Journal the house magazine for nannying fussbuckets and health fascists - is completely false.

NICE were clear that they had given advice on this matter and that it wasn't withdrawn (just not repeated - NICE isn't a lobby group). What we have here is departmental officials explaining that policy decisions are for ministers, the people elected to do that job, not advisors. And ministers are entitled to make policy decisions that run counter to the advice they are given by bodies like NICE. It is not the role of an advisory body like NICE to make statements of support for or disagreement with policy when that support or opposition is contrary to the government's position.

I wouldn't expect the fussbuckets to understand this distinction - indeed they usually adopt the position that government should do exactly what they say even when, as is the case with minimum pricing for alcohol or taxing sugar, the negative impact of that policy is very considerable (something the fussbuckets can ignore but which ministers have a duty to consider). What this advice to NICE reminds us is that political decision-making is - or should be - the reserve of the politicians we elect not advisory bodies. And there is no doubt that imposing a price floor or a new tax is a political decision not merely 'public health advice'.

....

On minimum pricing for alcohol...what people working with alcoholics say

****

Others have taken apart the Southampton University study that prompted all the renewed fuss but suffice it to say that I'm not really surprised at a finding that people who drink a lot spend more on alcohol. However, I am reassured by the response on minimum unit pricing for alcohol here from people who actually work with alcoholics every day - here's Vicki Beere, operations director at Project 6 in Keighley which works with people with drug and alcohol issues and their families:

"I guess it is disproportionate on the poorest people who are dependent on alcohol. Some of the possible consequences are people not being able to afford their level of alcohol use which puts them at risk of withdrawal which can be fatal. It puts them at risk of illness, risk of crime - they may feel the need to commit crime to fund their alcohol use. It also puts them at risk of poor nutrition, people have to make choices between eating and drinking, and poor physical health," says Vicki.

"We welcome the debate but would really like to see rather than increased investment in this - to influence minimum pricing will take a lot of time and money - we would rather see the money diverted into increased treatment and support for people suffering from alcohol issues and an increased profile of the prevention agenda." 

Sadly Bradford Council's officer - seemingly making up policy on the hoof - simply parroted the new puritan line.

....

Minimum pricing by stealth...

****

The campaign against minimum pricing for alcohol - a unwarranted and unjustified impost on the less well of - seems to have been success, at least for the time being. Or so says the Wine and Spirits Trade Association: 

Minimum alcohol pricing looks set to stay off the UK Government's policy agenda until at least the next General Election, the chief executive of the country's Wine & Spirit Trade Association has said. 

Crack open the bubbly folks, good cheer for all - including the poorest in the land - we can toast a successful campaign.

Or can we? Here's something from Alcohol Concerns 'Guide to Alcohol for Councillors':

Consider introducing a by-law to establish local or regional minimum pricing which is being looked at by local authorities in the north West.

This document - riddled with misinformation and inaccuracies (including the shocking lie that alcohol problems are getting worse when they aren't) - is being sent out across the land to Councillors. And if ever there were a bunch of people tempted by the New Puritan message it's Councillors - we love a nice ban, a new control or a new power.

So my cavalier friends the game has shifted - now you need to get hold of your local councillor and make the case for alcohol. The case about thousands of jobs, hundreds of businesses and the pleasure of the millions who elect us councillors.

Otherwise you'll get minimum pricing by stealth.

...

Minimum alcohol pricing looks set to stay off the UK Government's policy agenda until at least the next General Election, the chief executive of the country's Wine & Spirit Trade Association has said.
Read more at http://www.decanter.com/news/wine-news/584393/minimum-alcohol-pricing-off-the-uk-policy-agenda-says-wsta-chief#mcY3BLie5v2UP4JC.99

Minimum alcohol pricing looks set to stay off the UK Government's policy agenda until at least the next General Election, the chief executive of the country's Wine & Spirit Trade Association has said.
Read more at http://www.decanter.com/news/wine-news/584393/minimum-alcohol-pricing-off-the-uk-policy-agenda-says-wsta-chief#mcY3BLie5v2UP4JC.99

This week's star nannying fussbucket - Newcastle City Council

****

It had to start somewhere. And where else than in Newcastle where, it seems that that Council really doesn't like it's working-class population to enjoy a drink:

Newcastle City Council has introduced a minimum unit price condition for all new licences and applications for licence variation across the on and off-trade.

Now, leaving aside the dubious legality of these proposals, this demonstrates just how little Newcastle Council understands anything other than signalling a disapproval of less well-off people affording to have a drink.

The sad thing about these proposals - and the Council gets round not having the authority to dictate prices by claiming they are 'voluntary' - is that the Council claims that this policy will help pubs. Quite how this works heaven alone knows - we could discuss the myth of "pre-loading" but no-one is listening. People in Newcastle - and everywhere else for that matter - aren't going to pubs because they can't afford it and they can smoke at home.

If the City Council as its spokesman, one Stephen Savage, claims this will help pubs why on earth is it the first Council to clobber those pubs with a late night levy.

Nope, this is government by gesture. It won't save a single life. It won't reduce the amount of booze drunk (because they can't impose the policy on supermarkets as they can afford the lawyers). All it will do is make a bit of extra margin for those signing up and piss off Geordie drinkers.

....

This week's nannying fussbucket award...Cllr Michael Jones

****

...goes to Michael Jones, leader of Cheshire East council:

Council leader Michael Jones said: “We stand by our decision to go forward. We are talking to our sub-regional partners. We are looking at those who offer cut price alcohol as a temptation to young adults.”

He said he wasn’t talking about responsible drinkers.

“I’m talking about those who buy two litres of cider for £1.80, go home and drink it and then go out,” he said.

Of course, Cllr Jones doesn't have the power to fix prices so his campaign is mere posturing. However, it is worst for this not better - worse because Cllr Jones provides oxygen to the prohibitionists that inhabit public health departments and worse because he's misleading the Cheshire East public.

....

Public health? Focus on the real problem please....

****

The Association of Directors of Public Health (let's call them Nannying Fussbucket Central) has issued a grumpy statement explaining why they threw all their toys out of the pram and are screaming their toddler heads off. It includes this comment:

"Both standardised packaging and minimum unit pricing (MUP) are evidence -based interventions..."

The sole evidence (or should I say computer model) supporting MUP is rapidly unravelling (and alcohol consumption especially amongst the young continues to fall) and there is no evidence at all supporting the theory that shiny packs make children more likely to take up smoking other than the reasonable observation that we'll pick a colour over a plain pack when given that choice.

More to the point - the public health point that is - while the nannying fussbuckets are doing this:

These measures will primarily protect the future health of children...

The real public health problem is out there - and the public health people don't know why it's happening:

Around 600 more people – mainly elderly – have died every week so far this year compared with the average for the last five years, official figures show.

Since early 2012 there have been 23,400 more deaths than would have been expected in England and Wales.

This could be related to a series of bad winters, it could be the reductions in adult social care provision and it could be because public health's obsession with drinking in recent years has meant we've simply switched attention from the real health problems in society.

So perhaps, instead of throwing tantrums about government policy choices, these great public health brains might care to focus on the real problem?

....

...they do want the government to fix prices in their favour though...

****

We believe in freedom of speech and artistic expression. We don’t believe in mindless censorship.

This is the wonderful Brew Dog, of course, speaking about the Advertising Standards Authority. So it's a shame that their view on minimum pricing is so illiberal and self-serving:

The proposals will mean that the multi-national corporate hammerheads no longer allowed to discount their liquid cardboard to embarrassingly pathetic levels it will act to level the playing field in the off trade. Craft brewers can’t, and shouldn’t, discount their beers and sustain losses. With less of a price differential now in the off trade between industrial and craft beer it will be far easier for the consumer to trade up to awesome craft brews

So much for believing in choice and freedom (although I love the beer).

....

The proposals will mean that the multi-national corporate hammerheads no longer allowed to discount their liquid cardboard to embarrassingly pathetic levels it will act to level the playing field in the off trade. Craft brewers can’t, and shouldn’t, discount their beers and sustain losses. With less of a price differential now in the off trade between industrial and craft beer it will be far easier for the consumer to trade up to awesome craft brews. - See more at: http://www.brewdog.com/blog-article/brewdog-backs-minimum-pricing#sthash.gFpG6bsC.dpuf

“We believe in freedom of speech and artistic expression. We don’t believe in mindless censorship.
Read more at http://www.thedrum.com/news/2013/07/24/brewdog-responds-asa-those-mother-fukers-don-t-have-any-jurisdiction-over-us#0zmcl8rJoPq3WzuD.99

That minimum pricing evidence...or should I say lack of evidence?

****

The 'scientific' argument (as opposed to the New Puritan or prohibitionist arguments) for minimum pricing of alcohol was based on data from Sheffield University. Data they've now revised with the result that rather than the policy 'saving' 2000 lives per year after ten years, it would only save 624. And the impact on consumption would be just -1.6%, a figure that would be lost in any general trends around drinking.

The policy is a nonsense and the estimates of impact and harm reduction from the SARG team at Sheffield have reduced with each iteration to the point where the impact of minimum pricing is little more than statistical noise - at least at the levels proposed for England and Scotland. However, I do admire the brilliance of SARG's spin on their reduced estimates - rather than say the policy isn't really that great they compare instead to the ban on below cost selling (something that simply doesn't take place) so will have zero impact:

Using a further developed and updated version of the Sheffield Alcohol Policy Model, the researchers predict that the impact on overall alcohol consumption is small – a reduction of just 0.04 per cent (which equates to 0.3 units or less than half a pint of beer per drinker, per year). The impact on the five per cent of the population who drink at harmful levels was an estimated 0.08 per cent reduction (which equates to three units per year from a harmful drinker's average consumption level of over 3,700 units per year).

We know banning below cost sales was a gimmick (because there really aren't any) but now we also know that minimum pricing - unless it's at punitive levels - really has little or no impact on health. We know this - despite the lives saved figure - because levels of consumption have fallen over recent years while 'alcohol-related' hospital admissions have continued to rise. Unless of course the public health folk would like to revisit those figures as well?

....

A St George's Day toast to CAMRA

****

What I hear you say? To that supine bunch who've been suckered into backing the New Puritan, prohibitionist, anti-alcohol campaigns - ostensibly in order to "save the pub"?

It seems the members have given the CAMRA bosses a slap:

First, motion 8, proposed by the Liverpool branches, was passed, apparently without any speakers against.

8. This Conference requires that the Campaign should actively challenge the health lobby’s anti-alcohol statements to give a more balanced view.

Then, after what reportedly was a very lively debate, Motion 19 was passed by 276 votes to 201.

19. This Conference agrees that CAMRA is on the wrong side of the argument over minimum pricing. It instructs the National Executive to withdraw its support for this measure with immediate effect.

Progress indeed - perhaps we'll see all these articles, press releases and statements removed from CAMRA's website?

....

"Minimum pricing to be shelved" - we're not quite there folks

****

It's looking more likely that minimum pricing for alcohol - a ghastly piece of health fascism - is to be dropped:

Plans for minimum pricing on alcohol in England and Wales may be dropped because Conservative ministers are split over the proposals. 

Whatever the reason this is good news - the proposal was just another vote-losing attack on the less well off. But we're not yet there - the prohibitionists, fussbuckets, puritans and health fascists will be redoubling their efforts, churning out their lies and half-truths so as to get this 'back on track'.

So let's keep up the pressure, keep saying this is unwarranted, without evidence and punishes the moderate drinker as well as the serious toper.

....

Doctor know everything...

****

Including about marketing and pricing strategies:

...citing an article from a medical journal in 2009 by a leading liver specialist which suggested supermarkets were overcharging for food to pay for cheap drink.

This is the Prime Minister - yet again revelling in his ignorance of business. Or rather his minions at No 10 digging him out from the latest hole into which he'd dived. It seems that the PM believes that offers on beer are "subsidised" by more expensive food.

This is nonsense on sticks. For two reasons - firstly we don't go to supermarkets, in the main, to buy drink we go there to buy food and other household necessities. And secondly, the price of X isn't subsidised by the margins on Y - supermarket pricing strategies just don't work like that.

More importantly however, what qualification does a "leading liver specialist" have to talk about the pricing strategies of supermarkets? None whatsoever - I'll take his advice on my liver, maybe on some other doctoring stuff but not in an area where (despite not being a specialist) I know more than he does.

But then 'Doctor know everything', he is mighty god and great know-all.

....

Nannying Fussbucket of the day - another illiberal Liberal Democrat: Jenny Willott MP

****

I do sometimes wonder whether there remains anyone in the Liberal Democrat Party who actually possesses a shred of belief in liberalism. Each day I see another example of a Liberal Democrat politician advocating something that restricts freedom and limits choice.

Today it's Jenny Willott who thinks that the poorer residents over her inner-city constituency should be made to pay more for a bottle of wine:

"We need to do much more to tackle this problem - alcohol abuse is not only destroying the lives of individuals and families, it is also a huge burden on society as a whole.

"These measures are not about stopping responsible drinking but designed to tackle the minority who cause alcohol-related crime and disorder in our local communities, as we see each weekend in Cardiff.

"This is something I feel very strongly about and have been calling for action on for years. I am delighted that the Government is proposing to introduce a minimum price for alcohol, and encourage as many people as possible to contribute to the consultation to ensure we get this vital policy right."

I'd love to understand what strange process goes through the minds of these Liberal Democrat MPs - forget about the facts, let's get a headline in the local rag by proposing yet another illiberal restriction, control of ban! I can only suppose that political parties are not subject to the trades descriptions acts!

....

This isn't public health it's an attack on the lifestyles of the poor

****

I want to be angry. I really do.

So we are launching a 10-week consultation, seeking views on five key areas:

 

• a ban on multi-buy promotions in shops and off-licences to reduce excessive alcohol consumption
• a review of the mandatory licensing conditions, to ensure that they are sufficiently targeting problems such as irresponsible promotions in pubs and clubs
• health as a new alcohol licensing objective for cumulative impacts so that licensing authorities can consider alcohol-related health harms when managing the problems relating to the number of premises in their area
• cutting red tape for responsible businesses to reduce the burden of regulation while maintaining the integrity of the licensing system
• minimum unit pricing, ensuring for the first time that alcohol can only be sold at a sensible and appropriate price

But somehow, since I knew it was coming, I am resignedly depressed. I joined a Party that stood for personal responsibility, choice and independence but now find myself watching as an unjustified and unjustifiable attack on the lifestyles of ordinary people is prosecuted in the name of “health”.

There is no evidence to support the contention that alcohol is an especial problem – consumption has fallen and is falling further, violent crime is at its lowest level for thirty years and young people’s drinking behaviour is extremely moderate (and is matched by sharp declines in other drug use).

I can only conclude that these proposals are the bastard child of a terrifying union between temperance campaigners and a disdainful upper middle class that cannot countenance the idea of poor people drinking. It is Titus Salt revisited – a man who wouldn’t permit his workers to drink while enjoying a drink himself.

These proposals hand to public health officials the power to shut down pubs (the few that survive the smoking ban, massive hikes in duty and now the late night levy). The reason for this appears to be that we, like Sir Titus, don’t approve of working-class people drinking. It’s not the consumption of alcohol that is the issue but by who and where it’s being consumed. We appear to be OK with public school educated journalists and doctors quaffing champagne. We can just about tolerate a couple of university educated chaps enjoying a pint (just the one, you know) of “craft beer”. But some poor old man buying a can or two of cheap lager – that is terrible and eats away at the foundation of society.

The advocates of minimum pricing are quite clear – they are deliberately targeting the cheapest alcohol, the stuff that the least well off buy. This is despite the fact that – unlike smoking – drinking rates increase with social class and income. It’s those middle-class journalists who are drinking too much not the ordinary working class bloke.

These are not public health proposals.

These are not community safety proposals.

These proposals are a patronising and offensive attack on the lifestyles of ordinary people who, for whatever reason, can’t afford posh beer, malt whisky and fine wines. Why should they be punished just because we don’t approve of their tastes?

I give up.

....

How 'denormalisation' works...the case of drinking

****

You start with a little anecdote:

On a Friday night in the City a young professional woman collapses on the floor of the bar where she has been drinking with colleagues. She vomits, then passes out, and when an ambulance crew arrives they are verbally abused by the patient's friends, as the emergency service refuses to turn itself into a chauffeur to take the party home.

We are shocked especially when the article is accompanied by a rather old photograph of some young men drinking shots. How can this be happening! The writer continues with a sweeping statement - supported only by the anecdote - about (in this case) drinking:

This is all part of a British reality that refuses to conform to the cafe culture: the ideal that was supposed to emerge following the relaxation of UK licensing laws.

We are consuming more and more booze and it is killing us! Something must be done! But the evil producers of the deadly product are using their "power" to stop action:

The challenge in Scotland has been spearheaded by the Scotch Whisky Association – a trade body whose policy-making council is dominated by major drinks groups such as Johnnie Walker-owner Diageo, Pernod Ricard's Chivas Regal and Edrington, the home of Famous Grouse. Meanwhile, EU wine producers, concerned about how their exports to Britain will be hit, have launched their own campaign in Europe, albeit one that caused eyebrows to arch when the initial objection came from the seemingly unlikely quarter of Bulgaria. Conspiracy theorists even pondered if the former communist state challenged British policy with the assistance of the global drinks industry lobby.

See! Look! This international cartel of booze peddlers can buy a whole country's parliament!

At no point in this discussion is there any dispassionate appraisal of the facts. This is because the facts are not helpful. Take the uncomfortable fact that, for 16-24 year olds, 36% of men and 47% of women report not having had a drink at all in the week prior to survey and not a single young person reported drinking every day. And drinking rates are declining:

There has been a long-term downward trend in the proportion of adults who reported drinking in the week prior to interview. In 1998, 75% of men and 59% of women drank in the week prior to interview compared to 68% and 54% respectively in 2010. Similarly, the proportion of adults drinking on 5 or more days in the previous week has also decreased since 1998; in 1998 24% of men drank on 5 or more days in the previous weeks, compared to 17% in 2010, the equivalent figures for women were 13% and 10% respectively.

But you won't read this facts in a story promoting the denormalisation cause -  they prefer scare stories and sensationalism:

If one piece of common ground exists, it seems to be this: when it comes to Britain's out-of-control drinking culture, some one needs to call time, gentlemen and ladies, please.

Well no, that isn't common ground. We did something. We promoted an adult approach - great licensing flexibility, rises in duty and a public health strategy centred on "inform and persuade". And this has worked - consumption of alcohol has fallen and continues to fall.

For the denormalisers, the temperance campaigners and the prohibitionists to win the day it is necessary for drinking - or for that matter eating burgers or chocolate bars - to be causing a 'crisis' that requires something to be done. And since the statistics don't support the case, the nannying fussbuckets resort to anecdote. The next stage will be simply making stuff up. Just watch.

....